Singapore the 3rd least corrupt nation in the world
November 17th, 2009 | 
Author: Written by our Correspondent
Singapore is ranked the third least corrupt nation in the world by the latest report released from international NGO Transparency International.
The ranking are based on the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) which measures the perceived level of public-sector corruption in 180 countries and territories around the world. The CPI is a “survey of surveys”, based on 13 different expert and business surveys.
New Zealand is ranked number one with 9.4 points followed by Denmark with 9.3 points and Singapore and Sweden sharing third spot with 9.2 points.
Singapore is also the least corrupt nation in Asia followed by Hong Kong and Japan.
Its strong performance is attributed to the “political stability, long-established conflict of interest regulations and solid, functioning public institutions”.
In contrast, Singapore’s closest neighbor Malaysia slips four places to 56th. In a recent survey conducted by Merdeka Centre, graft was considered the most important issue by Malaysians.
Despite the setting up of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission last year, the new administration led by Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak continues to be plagued by graft, the Port Klang Free Zone scandal being a case in point.
Singapore was part of Malaysia for a brief period between 1963 and 1965 before the two went their separate ways.
Singapore leaders have frequently used Transparency International to promote the Singapore government as being “clean, honest and efficient” both at home and abroad while results of surveys conducted by some other NGOs like Reporters without Borders are dismissed as “absurd and divorced from reality” by one minister.
Posted in Headlines
31 Responses to “Singapore the 3rd least corrupt nation in the world”
Loading ...
Alex Tan Allan Ooi AWARE Chee Soon Juan Chiam See Tong Claire Lee David Widjaja DBS Dr Allan Ooi Dr Silviu Ionescu Dr Vivian Balakrishnan Foyce Le Xuan highnote5 Hong Lim Park Jack Lin Xinli Jack Neo Jack Neo affair Jack Neo scandal Josie Lau Josie Lau Meng Lee Lee Kuan Yew Lehman brothers Lighthouse Evangelism MAS minibonds Miss Singapore World NTU stabbing PAP Pastor Rony Tan Ris Low Romanian diplomat in hit-and-run Rony Tan S-League silviu ionescu Singapore Singapore 2010 Youth Olympic Games Tan Kin Lian Thio Su Mien Tiger Woods affair Tong Kok Wai Top 8 Vivian Balakrishnan Wendy Chong Y O G Youth Olympic Games
WP Cumulus Flash tag cloud by Roy Tanck and Luke Morton requires Flash Player 9 or better.
I am disappointed ! Why are we not ranked no.1 and scoring full 10 points when we have such highly (in fact the highest) paid people in the gahmen in the world ?
Good job guys!
From your recent articles I felt you were becoming the very thing you hate. Being Biased. I feel that this article was quite balanced, showing both sides of the story. Keep it up, keep biased hostility down, and you may become more credible in the eyes of Singaporeans.
Besides, I don’t think Singapore needs it’s own version of Fox News.
Correction, should be attributed to “out of this world pay, legalization of seemingly corruption activities, total control of the media and judiciary system”
The TI ranking is based on PERCEIVED level of corruption, not REAL level of corruption.
Perceptions can be shaped by many factors, such as media coverage (or the lack of), daily experiences, number of official investigations and convictions, or even definition of corruption according to the people surveyed.
Cronyism is not a crime under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Yes, compared to most countries, Singapore is relatively free of OPEN corruption.
Deeper reflective thoughts might ask – what about the insidious type of politically-camouflaged corruption with respectability??
Remember, corruption is not only ill-gotten cash received “below the table” like in China, but include all forms of corrupt conduct from misfeasance, nonfeasance, abuse of office, abuse in office, croynism, nepotism, failure to act as necessary etc etc etc
Anyone heard of the term “legalized corruption”? Paying yourself millions every year to uphold your integrity is corruption.
This is where Shanmugan comes in to declare: ‘This is where most people make a mistake…I have tried to explain that we are different. We are a city. We are not a country,’
It depends on their definition of “corruption”.
Cambridge Dictionary’s definition states:
corruption noun
• [U] illegal, bad or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power
If we’re talking about corruption to gain money, then of course our highly paid ministers don’t do that since they can already lead very comfortable lives in their ivory towers with those millions of dollars.
But if we’re talking about corruption to gain power at the expense of the citizenry, then that’s another story.
Illegal behavior? Maybe not. Bad or dishonest behavior? We’ll be the judge.
When you pay that kind of money, where got corruptions?
They have already made it legal!
Aspect some ministers to rise to the occasion and take credit for this, without questioning the inherent factual biasness of the survey.
That of cause, when rank low must wayang abit and claim unfair. When rank high also must wayang but this time claiming credit.
Is there a difference between blatant corruption and leegalised corruption. Just putting corruption as a law means no corruption ? All the dictators should follow Singapore by making corruption a lawful activity and culture, and manipulate the election and judiciary by saying ‘it is the law and the way the country run’. Just follow Singapore kangaroos, and it will not be wrong.
Oppsss… they can’t because they are democratic country with strong opp party and citizen with common sense unlike those opp party who are crippled and weaken by kangaroo law and citizes who are more than 66% brain-dead in through social-Leengineering in Singapore.
There is still corruption. Officers asking for sexual favors in return for not reporting boys and girls who are caught smoking.
Corruption comes in many forms, types, shades, shapes, sizes and colours.
The most grievous corruption is corruption of power, especially absolute power.
When someone continues to cling on to power, despite being handed over officially the PM-ship years ago, that can be seen as a form of corruption of power.
To be Non-corrupt means to say or do things without fear, favour or ill-will.
When fear is being instilled into the populace, that is already a form of corruption of power, as normal people have to live and operate under constant fear.
Over the years, Singaporeans have become well known for their “Kiasu” (bad loser) and “Kiasi”(coward) attitude and mentality. Obviously, this is a clear indication of FEAR having been instilled into their psyche.
When one operates under fear, how can we say that he/she is non-corrupt?
So, can we really say there is no or very little corruption in Singapore, or the contrary is also true?
Only 3rd??? After paying themselves millions???
On what basis are they demanding the highest pay for politicians on earth??? Not on corruption, as proven. Not on transparency, not on size of economy, not on land size, not on number of people…
the only reason i can think of is the collective stupidity of the people. the type that allows politicians to trample on the people’s interests and lord over them.
it depends on how one views “corruption’?
corruption of moral values/ideas to merely achieve one’s own selfish purpose can also be seen as corruption!
corruption can be in a rather subtle form,it need not always
be obvious to the naked eyes.must it?
Australian legal definition of corrupt conduct is very wide and nearly all encompassing
8 General nature of corrupt conduct of the New South Wales Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988
(1) Corrupt conduct is:
(a) any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the honest or impartial exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority, or
(b) any conduct of a public official that constitutes or involves the dishonest or partial exercise of any of his or her official functions, or
(c) any conduct of a public official or former public official that constitutes or involves a breach of public trust, or
(d) any conduct of a public official or former public official that involves the misuse of information or material that he or she has acquired in the course of his or her official functions, whether or not for his or her benefit or for the benefit of any other person.
(2) Corrupt conduct is also any conduct of any person (whether or not a public official) that adversely affects, or that could adversely affect, either directly or indirectly, the exercise of official functions by any public official, any group or body of public officials or any public authority and which could involve any of the following matters:
(a) official misconduct (including breach of trust, fraud in office, nonfeasance, misfeasance, malfeasance, oppression, extortion or imposition),
(b) bribery,
(c) blackmail,
(d) obtaining or offering secret commissions,
(e) fraud,
(f) theft,
(g) perverting the course of justice,
(h) embezzlement,
(i) election bribery,
(j) election funding offences,
(k) election fraud,
(l) treating,
(m) tax evasion,
(n) revenue evasion,
(o) currency violations,
(p) illegal drug dealings,
(q) illegal gambling,
(r) obtaining financial benefit by vice engaged in by others,
(s) bankruptcy and company violations,
(t) harbouring criminals,
(u) forgery,
(v) treason or other offences against the Sovereign,
(w) homicide or violence,
(x) matters of the same or a similar nature to any listed above,
(y) any conspiracy or attempt in relation to any of the above.
NOTICE THAT SECTION 7 (2) OF THE SAME LEGISLATION STATE VERY CLEARLY
(2) Conduct comprising a conspiracy or attempt to commit or engage in conduct that would be corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2) shall itself be regarded as corrupt conduct under section 8 (1) or (2).
That means that any person assisting or abetting the corrupt conduct (including public officials and non-officials in ANY CAPACITY) defined in section 8 IS ALSO GUILTY OF OFFENCE VIOLATION OF CORRUPTION DEFINED IN SECTION 8 OF THE CORRUPTION LEGISLATION.
DO WE HAVE SUCH A STRONG LEGISLATION IN SINGAPORE? Anyone can advise all here???
There’re also gambling in police HQs, and acceptance of bribes every now and then. But hell who gives a damn.
Suppression of corruption? Who WATCHES THE WATCHDOG is always the pertinent question?
We paid the highest pay to our leaders so they will not be corrupt, yet our standing is at no. 3? What a lousy return of investment to the people!!!
Well, good news then
I can be happy that we are better than others in terms of the perception in corruption. We have good laws the prohibit certain unwanted actions… so any action that is prohibit by the law is corruption. Good for them to enforce the law.
We may not have the traditional forms of corruption but we definitely have moral corruption in the government when ministers can draw multi-million dollar pay while the poorest citizens suffer with pittance.
The worst thing about corruption is NOT money. These may be, in some instance, reclaimed after prosecution. The WORST THING ABOUT CORRUPTION IS CORRUPT CONDUCT and CONSPIRACY OF CORRUPT CONDUCT. These are like cancer in society where unlawful behaviour thrives over lawful justice and enforcement of law in fair outcome for all citizenry. And it is very difficult to eradicate INSTITUTIONALISED CORRUPT CONDUCT once entrenched in the system.
If the Emperor removes all his corrupt officials, he has no one to serve him. So why NOT instal puppets, corrupts them – better still with transparent inducement – and get things done the Emperor’s way.
It is NO DIFFERENT from larceny which is the police officers abuse their office and abuse in office coming to “assist” a reported home burglary TRANSPARENTLY right before the witness eyes of the victim, help themselves with petty cash belonging to the victim left in the top drawer forsaken by robbers deeemed too small worthy of taking. This happens in the real world. How do the victim, twice beaten, prove larceny of petty cash in home burglary – unless he or she keeps the serial number of all petty cash in the home???
BUT LARCENY IS STILL CORRUPTION IN COLLUSION OF ALL POLICE OFFICERS INVOLVED, isn’t it???
Chinese history teaches wonder.
itsthelaw on Wed, 18th Nov 2009 9:50 am
How do you quantify and comparatively measure corruption involving the abuse of office and abuse in office of “certain unwanted actions”?
If you cannot quantify these, it is NOT in itself an incentive to deny it exist to claim integrity by falsehood or HYPOCRITICALLY PRETEND it does not exists?
The Corruption Perception Index measure of corruption is nonsense. Or is it NOT?
Singapore is rank the least 3 place in corruption. Why not no 1.It still tell there are still corruption in tihs country.In legal or illegal manner.In other country politican are pay like politican, civil servant are pay like civil servant.Private sector their risk of investment is “High”.
So if such civil servant is over paid themself this is legal manner, corruption legal & illegal corruption is still corruption.
Singapore free of corruption?
Let’s forget about ex-minister the late Teh Cheang Wan. He was gentleman enough to pay the ultimate price and not take the PAP down with him by makinf sure his case would not go to trial.
All these (and many more) are not figments of imagination or words of disparagement. They were reported and published by The Straits Times over the years. Has the writer of the above article forgotten about all these ?
Admin (TR)
You have removed a substantial part of my comments. These were taken off published reports by a media insync with the government, the Straits Times and are common knowledge. So why is there the need to hide and censored them? Why are you protecting the “integrity” of PAP as such ? Aren’t you supposed to present alternative views ?
There are no disparaging comments there (those which you have conveniently deleted). No libel or slander. There came straight out from Straits Times report. Let the government sue the Straits Times then if they are not true.
Is PAP pulling the strings behind ? Maybe we should check your resources because LKY said that “he who pays the piper calls the tune” (this was also reported in the press many years back and I am not singing this tune with my own concoction).
Come one. If you claim to be a responsible alternative source of media. Prove it.
Admin (TR)
Let me refresh you in the time frame in which those issues where published in the press (The Straits Times)
1. The purchase of several Nassim properties by LKY and his family from a project developed by Ong Beng Seng (late 90’s)
2. Ong Beng Seng’s own admission that he had previously applied for hosting Formula 1 GP but was previously denied (last year 2008). This was also admitted by LKY (same time period).
3. Tat Lee Bank’s first application of banking licence which was denied and subequent re-application the following year which was duly approved (early 80’s – court proceedings in defamation trial by LKY against JB Jeyeretnam)
They were public knowledge. Where’s the impartiality of your editorial staff ?
Hi Justice,
You can repost your comment here minus the names and quote the exact date of the Straits Times article.
As you know, our site is being monitored daily. Surely you don’t wish us to get into trouble?
Unfortunately, this is Singapore and not Hong Kong or Taiwan. We just have to be extra careful.
I agree with the fact that it depends on what you call corruption , abusive use of position and power , law etc is corruption . And also when there is no independant watchdog in a country to monitor things . And yes there is a big difference between percieved and real corruption .
One big thing to note TI has no representative offices in Singapore ( Bizarre ) yet all countries around have offices , so how do they evaluate Singapore in reality .
Does Singaporeans being corrupt overseas count?
Singapore Tech Banned From Indian Gun Bid
BY : Defense news
Singapore Technologies will not be allowed to participate in an Indian tender for 155mm ultra-light artillery guns because it was named in an alleged corruption scandal in June this year by India’s fraud investigating agency, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
Read more: http://idrw.org/?p=1732&cpage=1
“Does Singaporeans being corrupt overseas count?”
FYI,
Singapore Technologies do the important planning and paperwork for te bidding in Singapore not India.